Evaluation of splenic injury in blunt abdominal trauma by multidetector computed tomography

E. Elhamd, M. Zidan, Fatmah M Osman
{"title":"Evaluation of splenic injury in blunt abdominal trauma by multidetector computed tomography","authors":"E. Elhamd, M. Zidan, Fatmah M Osman","doi":"10.4103/jcmrp.jcmrp_100_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has been evolved in the assessment of cases with blunt abdominal trauma. It can easily detect injuries to different abdominal viscera. Aim The current work aimed to evaluate the role of MDCT in the diagnosis of splenic injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Patients and methods Over a period from March 2019 to June 2019, 40 patients with different forms of splenic injuries were reviewed. The splenic injuries were diagnosed based on abdominal ultrasound, CT, and/or laparotomy if done. Results Of the studied patients, 85% were males. The mean age of all patients was 21.40 ± 14.39 years. The most frequent form of trauma was motor car accidents (42.5%). Based on CT, 17 (42.5%), 16 (40%), seven (17.5%), and two (5%) patients had splenic laceration, hematoma, shattered spleen, and vascular extravasation, respectively. All patients had intraperitoneal fluid collection. Moreover, grades I, II, III, IV, and V splenic injuries were presented in seven (17.5%), six (15%), 19 (47.5%), two (5%), and six (15%) patients, respectively. All patients with grades I, II, and III were conservatively managed, whereas those with grades IV and V were managed with splenectomy. Diagnosis by MDCT in 20% of patients was consistent with the final diagnosis in laparotomy, so diagnostic accuracy of MDCT was 100%. In 80% of patients, the management plan was conservative and follow-up ultrasound showed improvement of splenic injuries, which suggests that the diagnosis of MDCT was correct. Conclusion MDCT has become the imaging modality of choice for evaluation of blunt splenic injuries and provides accurate diagnosis, including injury grades, associated active bleeding, and/or other visceral injury, which is helpful in determining the proper plan for successful management strategy and decreasing the rate of unnecessary exploratory laparotomy.","PeriodicalId":110854,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcmrp.jcmrp_100_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has been evolved in the assessment of cases with blunt abdominal trauma. It can easily detect injuries to different abdominal viscera. Aim The current work aimed to evaluate the role of MDCT in the diagnosis of splenic injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Patients and methods Over a period from March 2019 to June 2019, 40 patients with different forms of splenic injuries were reviewed. The splenic injuries were diagnosed based on abdominal ultrasound, CT, and/or laparotomy if done. Results Of the studied patients, 85% were males. The mean age of all patients was 21.40 ± 14.39 years. The most frequent form of trauma was motor car accidents (42.5%). Based on CT, 17 (42.5%), 16 (40%), seven (17.5%), and two (5%) patients had splenic laceration, hematoma, shattered spleen, and vascular extravasation, respectively. All patients had intraperitoneal fluid collection. Moreover, grades I, II, III, IV, and V splenic injuries were presented in seven (17.5%), six (15%), 19 (47.5%), two (5%), and six (15%) patients, respectively. All patients with grades I, II, and III were conservatively managed, whereas those with grades IV and V were managed with splenectomy. Diagnosis by MDCT in 20% of patients was consistent with the final diagnosis in laparotomy, so diagnostic accuracy of MDCT was 100%. In 80% of patients, the management plan was conservative and follow-up ultrasound showed improvement of splenic injuries, which suggests that the diagnosis of MDCT was correct. Conclusion MDCT has become the imaging modality of choice for evaluation of blunt splenic injuries and provides accurate diagnosis, including injury grades, associated active bleeding, and/or other visceral injury, which is helpful in determining the proper plan for successful management strategy and decreasing the rate of unnecessary exploratory laparotomy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹部钝性损伤脾损伤的多探测器计算机断层扫描评价
背景:多探测器计算机断层扫描(MDCT)在评估钝性腹部创伤病例方面已经发展起来。它可以很容易地检测到腹部不同脏器的损伤。目的探讨多层螺旋ct在钝性腹部创伤脾损伤诊断中的价值。患者与方法2019年3月至2019年6月对40例不同形式脾损伤患者进行回顾性分析。脾损伤是根据腹部超声、CT和/或剖腹手术诊断的。结果85%的患者为男性。患者平均年龄21.40±14.39岁。最常见的创伤形式是机动车事故(42.5%)。CT表现为脾裂伤17例(42.5%),血肿16例(40%),脾破碎7例(17.5%),血管外渗2例(5%)。所有患者均有腹腔积液。此外,I、II、III、IV、V级脾损伤分别为7例(17.5%)、6例(15%)、19例(47.5%)、2例(5%)和6例(15%)。所有I级、II级和III级患者均采用保守治疗,而IV级和V级患者采用脾切除术治疗。20%患者的MDCT诊断与开腹手术的最终诊断一致,因此MDCT的诊断准确率为100%。80%的患者治疗方案保守,随访超声显示脾损伤改善,提示MDCT诊断正确。结论MDCT已成为评估钝性脾损伤的首选成像方式,可提供准确的诊断,包括损伤等级、相关活动性出血和/或其他内脏损伤,有助于确定正确的治疗方案,减少不必要的剖腹探查率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative Study Between the Efficacy of Oral Verapamil and Bisoprolol on Reduction of Intraoperative Bleeding during Endoscopic Sinus Surgery under General Anesthesia Assessment of Cognitive Functions in Bipolar Disorder Patients Assessment of Acne Severity in Adult Female Acne Patients in Relation to BMI CD 11b and CD56 As Prognostic Markers in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Effect of Intrathecal Dexamethasone on Intra-operative Hemodynamics in Elderly Patients Undergoing Urologic Endoscopic Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1